Evil is evil. Evil has no remorse, no sense of guilt or decency.
Values, for Evil, are not irrelevant, nor inexistent, as many might think. Evil uses these “values” for his own profit, so he not only must he understand them fully as he's able extricate the maximum out of them.
Emotional blackmail is a tool that Evil finds particularly fond to use. All in the name of expected "respect", "gratefulness" or even "love". All the best of values, only intentionally misused.
Psychological violence is the greatest pain one can inflict. Physical pain can be identified, and be treated either by containment or battle, but any blow to the self-esteem wounds a person in uncharted places of his being, scars that remain left bleeding for a lifetime.
Another tool Evil loves to use is goodness. The use of words like “Child Protection” immediately causes a sympathetic reaction from the listener, and if you’re on a convincing path, you’ve, with just two words, made “half way” through a very simple and very convincing stroke. Very simple, very effective.
Evil knows, and Evil uses this method so frequently. Added bonus is the fact perceived that anyone opposing whoever claims to be "protecting children" can only be evil, independent if it’s the devil himself, horns and tail, who uses them.
Evil branding others as evil and getting away with it. Can't get any more perverse than that, can it?
That’s why the Black Hats immediately, and purposefully, make the association that anyone that is against CEOP MUST and CAN ONLY BE a paedophile, or, at least a pro-paedophile. Basic exploitation of basic concepts. If you’re not for me, you’re against me, and if you’re against me, you’re my worst enemy. Nothing less will do.
CEOP, Child Exploitation and Online Protection, four awesomely powerful words, that one just cannot go against. You simply CANNOT go against anyone that states they’re "protecting children". Or can one?
Yes, one can. And one should.
Because THAT expression is either naïve, or Evil, and I’ll explain why.
But before explaining how distorted it is the use of the expression, let me just say another thing. In the sick, repulsive mind of a paedophile, there’s, say the experts in the matter, a concept that he/she REALLY thinks that his/her actions are GOOD, when they’re cruelly molesting a child.
I will not get into the the paedophilic pleasure felt from the sadism or from the overpowerment of an helpless weak human being. Just saying here that paedophiles that have a preference for victims within in the age range of 10/14, think they are doing a great job in initiating their victim in their sexual life. That they are teaching them the facts of life as they should be taught.
They REALLY think that they are being the best pals to that victim that is suffering indescribable pain. That’s how distorted is the mind of these ignominious, horrible, people. And that’s how I think twice when somebody calls him or herself a “child protector” of children OTHER than their own.
And that is the relevant point.
Let me then use a simple an analogy of you being responsible to keep a given fox away from a given chicken coop. A chicken coop owned by someone else. You're just contracted to guarantee that the fox DOES NOT get to the chicken coop's owner's chicken.
Would you call yourself a "Fox Hunter" or a "Chicken Protector"? Would you “communicate” with the chicken, explaining to them the dangers of the fox, or would your focus be on the fox itself?
Would it even occur to you to place a “fox-button” on the fence so that any chicken whenever they felt the presence of the predator, would beak it and warn you? Isn't the “communication”, to the chickens, of the specifics, characteristics and potentialities, of the threat and the respective danger it represented to the them be CLEARLY the responsibility of the chicken coop owner, and not yours?
The interest for the safeguard of the chickens is primary his, not yours. Your interest is that you contribute the best way possible that the chickens remain safeguarded from the threat, as that will mean the owner's satisfaction and your payment.
So it is your responsibility to inform him, in the best way possible, what he can do to face the threat, and not the chickens themselves. They are like children, they lack judgement to understand what really is at stake, and it's his job, not yours, to protect them, his responsibility, not yours.
He’s has to take the necessary actions to protect his chicken, not you. You should give him the “fox-button”, so that he could warn you, and not to the chickens themselves, although ANY "fox-button" is of dangerous use, even by adults, as I'll explain in another post.
A fox is predator, and the chicken only realizes that when its too late. That's the unfortunate truth for the chicken and the basis for the fox to guarantee its own feeding. That's why the "fox-button" would be ridiculous.
Unless your objectives to putting up one would other than the apparent intent. But that's another issue, not for this post.
Your MAIN job would be to understand the fox’s motives, techniques and preference of victims, and act in to prevention. Your job is to hunt and catch the animal, or, at least. convince him that that chicken coop is a worthless target.
CEOP is a farce. If you want to implement child protection organization, then let me suggest the creation, not of a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization), but of a TANGO (Totally Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization) fully dedicated to this objective.
I call it the People Absolutely Responsible for Effective Notion of Total Safety (PARENTS). PARENTS would be only volunteer based, and would only be responsible for all those underage within THEIR own household.
The tax-payer wouldn’t have to pay a single cent for PARENTS.
PARENTS wouldn't have an HQ nor a President /Chairman / Whatever pompous title.
PARENTS would be made up of simple volunteers, hundreds of millions of them, already existing and already distributed evenly throughout all possible households.
Supporting PARENTS, the Police, in all its strength. A department specialized in paedophilia. Police officers who would have the ungrateful task of posing as these horrific criminals, so they could infiltrate the most heinous of worlds.
Humble heroes that would find fulfillment in each and every monster captured and brought publicly to justice.
Mr Gamble is evil. That’s a fact.
And the way he has used the words “Children”, “Exploitation” and “Protection” only is further proof of the stated.
Three powerful words, and when combined, become simply gigantic, as gigantic is their misuse.
For me, paedophilia is only second to another in the worst of crime list. There’s one that beats it quite clearly in gruesomeness: the intentional profit from paedophilia.
Mr. Gamble is correct when he says he ran a “Children Exploitation” center, because that is EXACTLY what he did.
And before you dare say that I’m withdrawing these two words out of context by withdrawing the other two, Online Protection, do reread what I’ve written about who I think should be responsible for all “Children Protection”, ON and OFFLINE.